Recent Opinions

It’s time to call all of these hate acts against people of color what they are: acts of terrorism. We must stop tiptoeing around this word, terrorism, which makes us uncomfortable, because the use of the word “terrorism” to describe the actions of part of the American population will make its perpetrators aware of our hypocrisy.

Growing up, I longed for people to view me as intelligent. I loved being associated with the adjective smart, and I, in turn, also complimented others’ intelligences freely. It wasn’t until later that I realized how damaging and invalidating that simple praise could be.

OPINIONS

U.S. ban on gay blood donation needs to end

I’ve got some damn good blood. I don’t mean genetically — but hey, shout-out to the ‘rents. I mean physically: That succulent red goo pulsing through my healthy, bulging veins is top-shelf: high in iron, low in cholesterol, disease-free.

In 1985, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration instituted a law to prohibit men who have had sex with men (MSM) from donating blood. And, at the time, it made sense. In the midst of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, any measure to limit new infections was justified. Scientific understanding of the transmissibility of the disease was tenuous at best, so an outright ban on blood donation by gay and bisexual men was deemed appropriate.

Almost two decades later, that ban is not only archaic, but discriminatory.

On Friday, July 11, 2014, the National Gay Blood Drive cast a spotlight on the issue. Its slogan: “Who will donate in my place?” That is, since gay and bisexual men cannot legally donate blood, they were asked to find “replacement donors” — heterosexual men and women, primarily — to donate in their place.

If the need to find “replacement donors” seems absurd, that’s because it is — and shedding light on that absurdity is the major success of the National Gay Blood Drive. If gay and bisexual men could donate blood, wouldn’t the slogan, “Who will donate with me?” rake in twice as many blood donations?

While the FDA hasn’t yet seen the light, the American Medical Association has opposed the ban since June 2013. According to AMA Board of Trustees member William Kobler, M.D., “The lifetime ban on blood donation for men who have sex with men is discriminatory and not based on sound science. [The AMA] urges a federal policy change to ensure blood donation bans or deferrals are applied to donors according to their individual level of risk and are not based on sexual orientation status alone.”

Since all blood donations have been legally required to be screened for a host of diseases, including HIV, for years, the ban is obviously outdated. It’s detrimental not only to the queer men it discriminates against, but also to the American public at large.

The American Red Cross frequently declares shortages in the available blood supply for medical use, and is thus constantly soliciting donations. As the frequency and power of natural disasters have increased, it has become even more important to have sufficient blood stored to treat large numbers of victims at any given time. And, as cancer rates in the United States continue to increase, more and more blood transfusions related to chemotherapy or other treatments will be required.

The U.K., Australia and Canada have all revoked their bans on blood donation by MSM. And, as expected, there has been no increase in HIV transmission via blood transfusion.

So, if the AMA has vocalized opposition to the ban, and other nations have successfully removed it, why does it still exist?

Obviously, it’s largely a legislative issue subject to all the foot-dragging of Washington.

But it seems to be more than that. The ban’s survival illuminates the institutionalized homophobia still present and prevalent in the United States. Perhaps, on a cultural level, blood donated by gay or bisexual men is viewed as “gay blood.” Since a non-negligible part of the American population still believes homosexuality is a disease, there’s a fear that a transfusion of blood from a gay man would not only carry HIV, “the gay disease,” but gayness itself.

Frankly, though, that claim holds as much merit as thinking that blood from a black person would cause your skin to darken or that blood from a Parisian would grant you the ability to speak French.

So clearly, the use of sexual preference history as a filter on blood donors is insufficient and discriminatory towards queer men. It’s also problematic that the ban is based on self-reported sexual behavior criteria: While openly gay and bisexual men are prevented from donating, those anonymous torsos on Grindr are free to donate as long as they publicly identify as straight.

Fortunately, even if straight men or women who donate blood are unknowingly infected with HIV or any other disease, all donated blood is put through an arsenal of tests before utilization in patients, and donors are informed of their infection.

It’s strange to think that I’m defending my right to be stabbed with a needle and drained of a pint of my own precious blood, but that’s just what I’m doing. Gay and bisexual men should have the same right to “do good” as any other American healthy enough to give blood. And, as is rarely the case, lifting the ban would be a win-win situation: Gay men would gain a basic freedom, and the American supply of blood for transfusions would increase.

If you agree that the FDA ban on blood donation by queer men needs to end, please sign and share this petition to the Obama Administration.

About Mark Bessen

Mark is the Desk Editor of Opinions for the Stanford Daily. He is a senior studying English, working on an honors thesis on the contemporary coming-of-age novel. He is particularly interested in the narratives of minority writers in the United States (taking minority to include issues of race, class, and gender/sexuality). Contact him at mbessen@stanford.edu with comments or questions.

In light of the WHO’s report about the epidemic of HIV in homosexuals around the world, I think the ban on gay blood donations is not only not anachronistic but more necessary than ever. If they could label the gay blood donor’s blood and give patient’s the option to decline gay blood, I think there would be a lot of gay blood spoiled on the shelves in part because of gay patienes who would not want the risk associated with it.

Ed Jones

More Blood History Dr. Charles Richard Drew (1904-1950) was an African-American physician and medical researcher. His research was in the field of blood transfusions, blood storage, and developing large-scale blood banks early in World War II. He protested against the practice of racial segregation in the donation of blood from donors of different races since it lacked scientific foundation.
In 1941 Dr Drew was chosen to lead the American Red Cross blood bank program. However, a War Department directive stated that, “It is not advisable to indiscriminately mix Caucasian and Negro blood for use in blood transfusions for the U.S. Military.” Dr Drew protested against this blood segregation, which has no basis in scientific fact, and as a result was forced to resign his position. The United States Military did not end segregation of its blood supplies until 1949. Politics and bigotry of blood still continues today.

Mark Bessen

Thank you for this fascinating historical point. It really sheds light on the longevity of this issue.

Mark Bessen

Hi Will,

Thanks for your comment. Let me clarify: there is absolutely no risk with receiving a transfusion of blood from a gay man. ALL donated blood, regardless of the donor, is screened by a complete panel to test for HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and all other known transmissible diseases.

Your recommendation that we “label gay blood” is beyond discriminatory. Doing so implies that there is a difference between “gay blood” and “straight blood” and propagates the already rampant homophobia. Imagine, for example, if we labeled blood “black blood” or “Chinese blood” or, to highly the absurdity of your proposal, “ugly person blood.” Which would you choose to pass on if you were in need of a blood transfusion.

I hope you will please educate yourself on the relevance of the WHO’s report in the context of blood donation in the United States.

Will Thompson

What about the gay guy’s blood who was infected with HIV the night before his donation? How do you test for that?

Mark Bessen

What about the closeted straight man’s blood who was infected with HIV the night before? What about the straight woman’s blood who was infected the night before?

Moreover, you’re not understanding the distinction between selection criteria based on sexual BEHAVIOR as opposed to sexual PREFERENCE. HIV is transmitted by risky sexual BEHAVIOR, not by “risky” sexual PREFERENCE.

I agree that there should be filters on blood donor based on BEHAVIOR–i.e., if someone has had unprotected sex in the last 3 months (within the window at which HIV infection may be undetected), it is a good idea to defer blood donation until the test would be conclusive.

Demosthenes

It’s a pretty basic fact that anal sex is a much greater risk factor. My guess is that MSM engage in anal sex far more often than heterosexuals. Even ‘protected’ anal sex is risky due to condom breakage, abrasions, etc. The fact remains that MSM is the most at-risk population for HIV in the US, though African American women are quickly gaining ground.

I don’t know how long blood is held on to before it gets tested, do you? If it isn’t held for at least a month, the most accurate tests, that can minimize both false negatives and false positives, wouldn’t work. I believe blood banks use ELISA, is that right? You ought to have researched those two factors and included them in your article. The discrimination angle is weak.

As long as the testing process is okay, then I don’t see why ban should stand. The testing is your strongest argument. It’s undeniable that male homosexual activities put a person at the greatest risk of infection and reinfection.

Will Thompson

Have you not heard that the rate of HIV in men who have sex with men is at epidemic proportions? That is the likelihood of a homosexual man to have HIV is 5x that of the general population’s? Why did the WHO recommend that gay men pre-treat for HIV and not other sexual preferences? Because homosexual men are a bigger risk than the straight population.

You’re in denial if you think that HIV is not a homosexual disease.

Mark Bessen

I certainly am not in denial that HIV is a disease that is a problem for the homosexual population. But, the fact that 20,000 new infections occur in women and straight men seems to suggest that it is not just a problem for gay men.

Frankly, ignorant men are a bigger risk than the open-minded population.

I’m not an expert on the subject, so I have to defer you there. Thanks for your interest.

Stanford Alumnus

The FDA addresses the core of the matter in its Q&A page on the issue,

“What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?

Having
had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV
infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been
shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or
safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased
rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently
accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be
helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without
evidence.”

For those who lack the sophistication to understand the above it boils down to this: because people lie all the time about their sexual habits (not only gay men), it is impossible to tell who’s telling the truth about being monogamous. So, asking about sexual orientation is the simplest way to exclude a population at high risk of HIV infection.

The author of this piece forgot about something called “the Pareto Principle” sometimes referred to as the 80/20 rule. A recent CDC survey said that there are around 2% gay males in the US population. The CDC data on HIV transmissions say that around 70% of new HIV transmissions each year correspond to gay men. So applying the 2/70 rule, excluding 2% of the population from the donor pool, excludes 70% of potential HIV transmissions due to the window period. Few things in life are more self evident than this.

In 2007, a gay organ donor who had tested negative at the time of the donation, transmitted HIV and Hepatitis C to four patients in Chicago. To “play nice”, the hospital staff didn’t tell those who received the organs, one of them on dialysis who could have waited for a different donor, about the origin of the organs which prompted said recipient to sue the facility that provided the organs.

Those who put forward nonsensical proposals like these so that gay men can feel better with being gay men at the expense of risking the life of innocent people should educate themselves about what happened in the early 1980s when many hemophiliacs died at the hands of contaminated factor VIII. A documentary titled “Bad Blood: A Cautionary Tale” provides an excellent portrayal for those who are too young to remember.

Having grown up in the 1980s, the memories of the slaughter caused by blood contaminated by HIV to innocent people are still with me, which is why I hope that the FDA continues to use science and logic to ban gay men from donating blood.

Below the science behind the FDA ban. Again, not discriminatory, it is the same kind of science that Google, Facebook and the like use to match ads to online behavior. It is not as accurate as quantum mechanics, but it has allowed to keep the American blood supply relatively safe for 30 years.

It is one thing to ask for the right to be married, quite another for the right to infect innocent people with HIV/AIDS. The numbers speak for themselves. As I said, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle couple with the data below makes the FDA policy banning gay males from donating blood one of the soundest public health provisions currently in place in the United States.

In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted
for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of
infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV
infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men
and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.

Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay
and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV
infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white
gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

Among all gay and bisexual men,
black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%)
estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new
infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800;
45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections
increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men
aged 13 to 24.

Among all gay and bisexual men,
Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%)
estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new
infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%)
occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

Demosthenes

Mr. Bessen, any rebuttals?

Stanford Alumnus

When the pigs fly.

Few public health decisions are more scientifically sound that the current FDA policy banning gay males from blood donation. It has to be noted that lesbians (or women who have sex with other women) are not banned because again, epidemiologically speaking, being a lesbian, if it is not associated with other risk factors like IV drug use, predicts the opposite: a very low probability of HIV infection.

The notion that banning gay males from donating blood is “discriminatory” contradicts science and logic. It is also one of the reasons people exhibit animosity against gay males; indeed, in this case, the potential for a window period transmission is real and the most recent precedent is the 2007 case in Chicago.

A University of Chicago Medical Center patient filed suit against the
hospital and one of its surgeons Monday, charging medical negligence
after receiving a kidney transplant in January 2007 that she later found
infected her with HIV and Hepatitis C.

The patient claims the hospital had known that the organ donor had
participated in “homosexual sexual activity within the past five years”
but had withheld this information from her, according to Thomas
Demetrio, the plaintiff’s attorney. The plaintiff filed suit
anonymously.

Privacy laws prohibit the Medical Center from disclosing what it
told its patients about the donor, and Medical Center officials declined
to comment on the matter because of the pending lawsuit.

According to the Medical Center’s website, the University has successfully completed 2,500 kidney transplants.

The kidney tested negative for both HIV and Hepatitis C when it was
screened and transplanted, according to Demetrio, but current medical
tests cannot always detect diseases immediately after infection. In some
cases, tests can come up clean several weeks after infection has
occurred.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the plaintiff didn’t find out she
had contracted the diseases until early this month. They report that she
was brought to the hospital for testing after it was discovered that
three other patients who received transplants from the same donor had
contracted HIV.”

Stanford Alumnus

Also to address the point that other countries have reversed their policy, below is the FDA reasoning on why said policy does not apply to a country with 300 million people and 17 million blood donations every year.

The 2007 Chicago case shows that we are not dealing with hypotheticals here, but with the potential or ruining the lives of real people.

HIV
tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV
100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of
blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost
exclusively from so called “window period” donations. The “window
period” exists very early after infection, where even current HIV
testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person
is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed
sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this
reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV
positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but
are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of
HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased
risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion
recipients due to the possibility that blood that has already been
collected and is being stored in a blood bank may be accidentally given
to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a
positive test. Such medical errors occur extremely rarely, but given
that there are about 17 million Whole Blood and red blood cell donations
collected each year in the USA, they can occur.”

marian duss

HI My Name is MARIAN DUSS, I wish to share my testimonies with the general public about what this man called Dr lawcy of( drlawcyspellhome@gmail.com ] has just done for me , this man has just did what I thought nobody will ever do for me, i was HIV positive when one of my family friend introduce this man to me, I never believed that great DR LAWCY could do this, when I contacted him on this same issue on ground, he casted some spell for me and gave me some parcel to drink, now I am so happy to say that the virus I was having In my body have left me. All thanks to DR LAWCY If you are out there passing through this same kind of problems you can contact him today on his mail ( drlawcyspellhome@gmail.com. )

and he will also help you as well with his great spell caster, THANKS BE TO DR LAWCY…………………..

marian duss

HI My Name is MARIAN DUSS, I wish to share my testimonies with the general public about what this man called Dr lawcy of( drlawcyspellhome@gmail.com ] has just done for me , this man has just did what I thought nobody will ever do for me, i was HIV positive when one of my family friend introduce this man to me, I never believed that great DR LAWCY could do this, when I contacted him on this same issue on ground, he casted some spell for me and gave me some parcel to drink, now I am so happy to say that the virus I was having In my body have left me. All thanks to DR LAWCY If you are out there passing through this same kind of problems you can contact him today on his mail ( drlawcyspellhome@gmail.com. )
and he will also help you as well with his great spell caster, THANKS BE TO DR LAWCY…………………

Demosthenes

You’ve engaged in a red herring relating to Will’s last argument.. The fact remains that homosexual men are 5x more likely to be infected. Saying that other people are also infected is a deflection. The only group in the US at epidemic levels is homosexual men. You are simply wrong. Feelings don’t come before public health. So, no, “ignorant people” are not at higher risk than people who have anal sex regularly. Even if another population were at epidemic levels that is not an argument for homosexuals, it’s an argument against that population.

Joe

the ban does not discriminate based on sexual preference; it discriminates based on sexual history.

FlyButanol

If 60% of new new infections occur among gay men who may be something like 2% of the population, then there are about 30,000 new gay infections in a population of about (2% of 300,000,000), or 6,000,000. That gives a new infection rate among gay men of about 30,000/6,000,000 = 3/600 = 1/200 = .5%. Among heterosexuals, the rate is about 20,000/300,000,000 = 2/300,000 = .000667%. Clearly there is a significant statistical difference in infection rates, such that the rate of heterosexual infection is almost negligible.

This, however, is not the main question, it is a smoke screen. Instead, we should ask how many people in each population are infected and will possibly taint the nation’s blood supply, and what proportion of the total does that represent? The CDC says that “more than 1.1 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection”, and that most of those are gay men. If that represents only 51%, that’s already about 550,000 out of an estimated population of 6,000,000, or 55/600; almost 1 in 10 already, and the CDC estimates that more than 1 in 6 don’t even know they are infected. Among the general population, it’s about 450,000 in a population of 300,000,000, or 45/30,000, or about 1 in 667.

Clearly, the odds show that gays are an at-risk population who, out of respect for their fellow Americans, would be expected to voluntarily refrain from donating blood. That some argue against irrefutable facts makes one question their motives. Are a few activists trying to remove the stigma of a “gay disease” even at the expense of innocents, perhaps in a bid to increase our already considerable investment in fighting the disease.

Submissions

Letters to the editor: E-mail Editor in Chief Joseph Beyda at eic@stanforddaily.com. Signed letters only. Students and alums, please include class year for publication. Non-students, please include city or University affiliation for publication. All: please include evening telephone number (not for publication). Word limit for letters: 500.

Op-eds: E-mail Managing Editor of Opinions Aimee Trujillo at opinions@stanforddaily.com. Students and alums, please include class year for publication. Non-students, please include city or University affiliation for publication. All: please include evening telephone number (not for publication). Word limit for op-eds: 700.

Opinions Columnists

Nick Ahamed The Muckraker

Mark Bessen The Fault in Our Systems

Winston ShiA More Perfect Union

Mysia AndersonEvolving

Johnathan Bowes Super Tuesday

Aimee TrujilloSuper Tuesday

Veronica Anorve Super Tuesday

Neil ChaudharyDouble Take

Mina ShahWednesdays in the World

Raven JiangQuoth the Raven

That’s what we said

Until we build a culture where mental health is urgently and openly discussed — and we are well on our way — the demand for CAPS will only grow. Students, accustomed to some of the best student services in the world, expect better from what is supposed to be the University’s last line of defense. —Vol. 247 Editorial Board